:00:01. > :00:04.Russian authorities that Mr Snowden should be returned to America to
:00:04. > :00:14.face trial for leaking national secrets. He has been stranded in
:00:14. > :00:18.
:00:18. > :00:21.Moscow for more than three weeks. Welcome to HARDtalk. Britain's Labor
:00:21. > :00:30.Party was created from the trade unions and still gets most of its
:00:30. > :00:37.money from them. Its leader Ed Miliband, a man who owns his job to
:00:37. > :00:41.the union, was to sever those ties. My guest is the creator of different
:00:41. > :00:46.leader of the GMB. What would a change meant for the Labor Party,
:00:46. > :00:56.the unions, and working class is back working class representation in
:00:56. > :01:19.
:01:19. > :01:26.Welcome to the top. Is it time for unions to change their relationship
:01:26. > :01:29.with labour? I think what Ed Miliband has said is what many
:01:29. > :01:33.people have been thinking for some time. It has not been working
:01:33. > :01:42.particularly well for the prospect of four trade unions and their
:01:42. > :01:49.members. Yes. People need to understand the unions origins in the
:01:49. > :01:53.birth of the party came about right about 1900. Most of the unions were
:01:53. > :01:58.craft -based organisations. The mass of the country were not in unions.
:01:58. > :02:07.There came a thing called new Unionism. That meant ordinary
:02:07. > :02:12.workers, doctors, or very workers formed unions. There was no
:02:12. > :02:15.representation in the work less and no political voice. At the time it
:02:15. > :02:22.was a 2-party state. The Liberals and the Conservatives. Stop me if
:02:22. > :02:25.this sounds familiar. You are talking about 110 years ago. I am.
:02:25. > :02:31.But it is important to know why those routes were created. Working
:02:31. > :02:34.people did not have a voice in Parliament. Unions took an approach
:02:34. > :02:40.at the time they believed in democracy and believes that working
:02:40. > :02:49.people should have that reputation. Hence the of the Labour Party.
:02:50. > :02:54.is a reputation that has evolved in the decades since. Unite union was
:02:54. > :03:00.kicked -- accused of signing up their members to be local party
:03:01. > :03:08.members without their knowledge, paying the Jews for them, -- and
:03:08. > :03:12.use, so that they could elect the local campaign to try campaign in
:03:12. > :03:18.the area. A lot of people say that this is evidence against them. Do
:03:18. > :03:21.you think what they did was wrong? have not seen the report. And
:03:21. > :03:30.virtually nobody has yet. There is a multiple speccie mission. If the
:03:30. > :03:36.rules were broken, the rules exist. If people are signed up without
:03:36. > :03:41.their permission and that would be wrong. It was a tiny party. The idea
:03:41. > :03:48.of a union sitting in London, effectively getting people to sign
:03:48. > :03:52.up with their knowledge, it was a party with a hundred getting another
:03:52. > :04:00.hundred or might you would be able to manipulate the selection of the
:04:00. > :04:04.candidate. It is exactly what to talk about. Getting working-class
:04:04. > :04:11.people to get representation. joined schemes have been around for
:04:11. > :04:14.years. The problem with unions, including my own, have tried just
:04:14. > :04:20.about everything you can possibly imagine. Conferences, newsletters,
:04:20. > :04:24.you name it. The union joined scheme actually means the member can join
:04:24. > :04:30.the party, and that fee for the first year is paid by the union.
:04:30. > :04:36.That is absolutely legitimate. We have knocked down in -- we have not
:04:36. > :04:39.been knocked down in a rush for people to use that opportunity.
:04:39. > :04:43.Independent targeting, which is what it sounds like, that is not the way
:04:43. > :04:49.to do it. What you want is to encourage more people to be active
:04:49. > :04:51.in the party from the trade unions. Are the unions interested in getting
:04:51. > :04:57.more people with work life experience into Westminster?
:04:57. > :05:03.Absolutely. Do we have a vested interest? Absolutely. We would never
:05:03. > :05:07.hide that. Of course we are. The truth of that is, the Labour Party,
:05:07. > :05:14.has been on representative of working people. That is why it lost
:05:14. > :05:18.5 million votes. They did not disappear. They did not will die.
:05:18. > :05:28.They stop understanding what the basic issues were of many working
:05:28. > :05:31.
:05:31. > :05:34.people. . So the problem was with the party? Not at the unions?
:05:34. > :05:39.have been quite loyally turning up at party conferences, supporting the
:05:39. > :05:43.leadership, in many years delivering the money and the vote is, working
:05:43. > :05:48.hard at election time, and in return, some of the key issues and
:05:48. > :05:53.some of the big albums we are now facing, issues like social housing,
:05:53. > :05:57.have just been felt to be addressed. I don't think it is the unions.
:05:57. > :06:00.saying you are foolish of these years were doing that? I think you
:06:00. > :06:05.come to a point where you do not think you are going to change the
:06:05. > :06:11.current system. In 1997, the country was so desperate for change, they
:06:11. > :06:17.really were. I think the mistake that some of the new Labour people
:06:17. > :06:20.made was that they think they had swept them into power but they had
:06:20. > :06:28.really swept the government out. They looked worn out. They looked a
:06:29. > :06:33.bit seedy. And each collection from there, from 1997 to 2010, the truth
:06:33. > :06:36.of the matter was that labour lost more and more votes. Many people who
:06:36. > :06:42.were traditional voters did not vote any more. They were switched off by
:06:42. > :06:49.the politics. I think it's because they failed to address the key
:06:49. > :06:57.issues. In the last three years, 81% of labours funding has come from the
:06:57. > :07:00.unions. Was that a waste of money? It was not a waste of money. Around
:07:00. > :07:03.the country, there are a lot of efforts that go on a different
:07:04. > :07:09.areas. A lot of good local politicians do things. What did you
:07:10. > :07:14.get your money? That is a very good question. I would have to say that
:07:14. > :07:17.there were times when I could not have given you an answer. What I got
:07:18. > :07:24.was a lot of aggravation Folau people saying why you continuing to
:07:24. > :07:30.support the party went they are not continuing to support us. Many
:07:30. > :07:33.people in the workplace offer from bullying, harassment and fear. We
:07:33. > :07:37.still have issues with people who support trade unions are
:07:37. > :07:41.blacklisted. People trying to organise health and safety on
:07:41. > :07:44.construction sites are blacklisted. You would expect that that would be
:07:44. > :07:49.an absolute number one issue. But no one should be persecuted for wanting
:07:49. > :07:56.to protect safety issues. At times it felt like people were embarrassed
:07:56. > :08:02.about us. We felt like we were the elderly relative who with a little
:08:02. > :08:05.bit of incontinence or something. We were seen as old-fashioned. We were
:08:05. > :08:10.played down. We were never played down when it came time for
:08:10. > :08:15.elections. They did not want to see is that the party, we were not ever
:08:15. > :08:22.invited to the celebrations. We were certainly always required to deliver
:08:22. > :08:25.finance and organisation. Bring us up to date. When we had Ed Miliband
:08:25. > :08:30.saying it is time for a change and I am going to propose, and what he
:08:30. > :08:35.came up with was this idea, instead of you decided that if we give money
:08:35. > :08:40.to the Labor Party it would happen automatically, anybody who signed up
:08:40. > :08:46.your union would have to vote for your affiliation fee and possibly
:08:46. > :08:49.also as one union does, your political fund fee, to go to the
:08:49. > :08:53.Labour Party. He is saying that they have to opt in to that rather than
:08:53. > :08:59.being opting out. Not to listening to you, you are so hacked off with
:08:59. > :09:04.the party, you're not going to send any of your money there. I later
:09:04. > :09:09.tell you what I think it is saying. have closer ties with him that I
:09:09. > :09:18.have. This is what I understood him to say. And I'm not disagreeing with
:09:18. > :09:23.it. I think its time has come. Someone who joins GMB, they do not
:09:23. > :09:29.have to join a political fund. We have a political fund. You do not
:09:29. > :09:39.have to join a political fund, you can opt out. And lots of people do.
:09:39. > :09:46.Many people, 150,000 in our union, . Out of 600,000. 80,000 people
:09:46. > :09:50.dropped out of the political fund entirely. Another hundred and 40,000
:09:50. > :09:53.say that we understand that the union needs a political fund. We
:09:53. > :10:00.understand you need to campaign for workers rights. You need a political
:10:00. > :10:10.fund. But we do not want any money to go to Labour Party. How many opt
:10:10. > :10:11.
:10:11. > :10:17.out of that? I'd say on hundred and 40,000. They pay that out of the
:10:17. > :10:26.affiliation from. We only affiliate to the party 410,000 out of a
:10:26. > :10:29.600,000. The total you give to the party is �200 million. You have said
:10:29. > :10:36.that 90% of that would go as a result of the changes that Ed
:10:36. > :10:46.Miliband has proposed. So that's 2 million would drop two, 20,000 that
:10:46. > :10:51.
:10:51. > :10:56.we're talking. It could be 10%. Ed said that he does not want anybody
:10:56. > :11:00.who -- it is not when the money from people who doesn't vote. So that
:11:00. > :11:08.would just become part of the political fund. It would not be
:11:08. > :11:12.donated to the Labour Party. They would see that we -- they would say
:11:12. > :11:16.that they would have to opt in. I cannot tell you how many would do
:11:16. > :11:21.it. It may be 10,000, it may be 100,000. There is a big difference
:11:21. > :11:27.between people saying that we support the unions, but we do not
:11:27. > :11:33.want to be members of a party. I want to get to, for our audience
:11:33. > :11:37.we do not need to get into the details of our rules. That is the
:11:37. > :11:41.proper. People do not understand the rules. It does not sound that you
:11:41. > :11:46.want to convince people to signup, or whether you want to give the
:11:47. > :11:54.unions money to this party. It is their money, it is not my money.
:11:54. > :11:57.GMB union money at the moment, total �2 million, how much do you think
:11:57. > :12:03.should be going to the Labour Party that you think has been not do
:12:03. > :12:13.anything for you? I can only guess from the basis of people who opt in,
:12:13. > :12:16.
:12:16. > :12:21.200,000, 250,000. That is all I can say. So 200,000 from 2 million.They
:12:21. > :12:26.have to make the transition from supporting to be members. What
:12:26. > :12:30.happens to the relationship between you and the party? You almost sound
:12:30. > :12:35.that this has been a long time coming. It almost makes it sound
:12:35. > :12:39.like this is a split that needed to happen. I would not say it is a
:12:39. > :12:45.split would set is a different way to doing business will stop you will
:12:45. > :12:52.be continuing to do business with concussion at as long as the party
:12:52. > :12:56.is coming forward with progressive issues. Have they been until now? It
:12:56. > :13:06.has been patchy. It took a long time to get the minimum wage, which every
:13:06. > :13:07.
:13:07. > :13:14.opposition outtakes claim -- now lays claim to being the father. And
:13:14. > :13:18.what about Ed Miliband? Is the relationship with him over? This is
:13:18. > :13:26.a media myth. The Labor Party election for leader is split into an
:13:26. > :13:35.electoral college. 250 MPs have 1/3 of the vote. 250. And they voted for
:13:35. > :13:43.his brother. We are talking about the cognitive part of the college.
:13:43. > :13:53.Party members, 250,000 of them, they also had 1/3. 2.5 million also had
:13:53. > :13:58.
:13:58. > :14:05.1/3. 250 MPs equals 250... Parliamentary MPs voted for David.
:14:05. > :14:11.This is supposed to be our talk. will not accept that it was the
:14:11. > :14:17.union votes that put Ed Miliband into the leadership of the Labor
:14:17. > :14:24.Party. If less party members had voted for him, he would not have
:14:24. > :14:31.won. If less MPs had voted for him he would not have won. Not every
:14:31. > :14:34.trade union supported Ed Miliband. What will happen with Ed Miliband?
:14:34. > :14:38.Many people in the situation will not believe it was effectively the
:14:38. > :14:47.union vote because of the way it went. You don't want to listen to
:14:47. > :14:51.the fact... Some unions campaigned and voted for and to their moments
:14:51. > :14:55.-- said to their members to vote for David. When you look at how many of
:14:55. > :15:01.the union vote supported Ed Miliband, that is what gave him the
:15:01. > :15:06.push ahead. He secured a big victory. What happened to your
:15:06. > :15:14.relationship with Ed Miliband? happens now? I think he's a decent
:15:14. > :15:18.man. Don't think he is antiunion. he worth giving money to?
:15:18. > :15:27.members will have to make that choice. That is what he has said.
:15:27. > :15:31.What will you advise them? I'm not quite sure what you meant. Will you
:15:31. > :15:36.say that you urge them to sign up? We will not say that. What will you
:15:36. > :15:40.say? We will say this is the position, if you wish to support the
:15:40. > :15:50.Labor Party, you have to opt in to become an associate member of the
:15:50. > :15:52.
:15:52. > :15:54.Labour Party. You would be recommending they don't do it?
:15:54. > :16:01.started off by saying the relationship is not working. It is
:16:01. > :16:05.an individual choice. This idea that some union general secretary says to
:16:05. > :16:11.vote for one particular person, this is insulting to our members. Believe
:16:11. > :16:16.me they are more than capable of making up their own mind. Where we
:16:16. > :16:20.are at the moment, you will know that Bob Crow of the RMT has said,
:16:20. > :16:26.actually, this isn't working any more. It is almost time to start
:16:26. > :16:31.setting up our own party. That all the parties look the same now. This
:16:31. > :16:38.particular political party wants to go down the same fiscal route as the
:16:38. > :16:40.Tories and the Liberal Democrats. He cannot see any difference between
:16:40. > :16:45.the three political parties. There is no voice for working people any
:16:45. > :16:51.more. He says it is time to do with the unions did 120 years ago.
:16:51. > :16:56.Firstly, his union is not an affiliate to the Labour Party. He
:16:56. > :16:59.has held that view for a long time. They are not part of the Labour
:16:59. > :17:05.Party and are not affiliated. They have been organising alternative
:17:05. > :17:09.political campaigns around Europe and elsewhere. They have have no
:17:09. > :17:14.impact that I have noticed. We do listen to him, he is unimportant.
:17:14. > :17:18.They are your words. I think he's a very nice guy and has done a great
:17:18. > :17:23.job for union. But what he says there's no relevance? He is
:17:23. > :17:32.questioning the general perception that everybody is unhappy with the
:17:32. > :17:39.Labour Party. It is up to the party to bring back -- win back millions
:17:39. > :17:42.of working boats. They have two. If they don't, what happens? They won't
:17:42. > :17:49.win the election. They can't win an election as millions of people start
:17:49. > :17:54.voting for them. How much of that is down to money they get from unions?
:17:54. > :17:57.At the moment the money is vitally important because it balance out --
:17:57. > :18:06.balances out the money the Conservatives get from big business.
:18:06. > :18:09.If the union money is lost, then ensure Ed Miliband can make it up
:18:09. > :18:15.from elsewhere, but then we will have two major political parties
:18:15. > :18:25.funded by business. He's going to lose that money as things stand?
:18:25. > :18:30.
:18:30. > :18:36.criteria he set, if I have understood it right, he doesn't want
:18:36. > :18:40.any money from any trade union member who hasn't voted... Rather
:18:40. > :18:47.than going around that again, from what you are saying he has a
:18:47. > :18:50.potential problem if he doesn't get as much money. I think the exchanges
:18:50. > :18:57.at prime ministers question Time would indicate it won't be this
:18:57. > :19:01.Parliament. What will it mean for the unions, then? The unions will
:19:01. > :19:06.have to sharpen up their game. They will have to start focusing on key
:19:06. > :19:11.issues and switching public opinion. They will have to bring in pressure
:19:11. > :19:14.on a whole range of politicians. Issues that affect the public. I
:19:14. > :19:19.judge things about whether the public want more privatisation or
:19:19. > :19:26.not. I don't think they do. I doubt whether the House of Commons as it
:19:26. > :19:30.is currently constituted would vote to set up the NHS. I doubt that.
:19:30. > :19:36.are you going to continue to have any influence? You will have as much
:19:36. > :19:42.money as you have before. We will have more. And you can use it in a
:19:42. > :19:49.different way. We will use it in a political campaign way.
:19:49. > :19:53.individual MPs of any party? union will say we support the Labour
:19:53. > :19:58.Party. Until that is changed, that is what we will do. Will you change
:19:58. > :20:03.the rules? It may happen next year. If I sat here now and told you our
:20:03. > :20:08.conference... Would you like to change the rules? I think it is
:20:08. > :20:12.inevitable that there would be a strong pull. There will be less
:20:12. > :20:16.opportunity to resist it. And it will be a call for what? Think it
:20:16. > :20:22.will call for the union to be not affiliated with any political party.
:20:22. > :20:28.Then you are free to spend your money on individual MPs? Effectively
:20:28. > :20:32.we will be free to do that from early next year. Do you think you
:20:32. > :20:37.will be more powerful as a result? It is not about being more powerful.
:20:37. > :20:44.Able to influence? Is that getting social change. We stand for it
:20:44. > :20:47.social change. Do you think you will be more effective? We stand for the
:20:47. > :20:52.collective good. Hopefully we will be more effective. I think people
:20:52. > :20:56.have become embarrassed by a link to a trade unions. That is a
:20:56. > :21:03.disappointment to me. I expect the Conservatives to attack us. It is
:21:03. > :21:09.just good ground. I don't expect Labour Party MPs to. Do you think
:21:09. > :21:18.this is dog whistle politics? Is -- it is not a phrase I am using.
:21:19. > :21:23.Others have used it. Some have described it as a battle. I don't
:21:23. > :21:26.think if they were sitting there and accusing me -- I don't think they
:21:26. > :21:34.are sitting there and accusing me. Do you think it is deliberately
:21:34. > :21:41.chosen as a battle? I think force on. For Ed Miliband.I think he is a
:21:41. > :21:45.very decent bloke. I think inside he is trying to do the best as he sees
:21:45. > :21:52.it. I don't doubt there are people in the party who have not recovered
:21:52. > :21:59.at the country rejected their party. They have forgotten the way that
:21:59. > :22:04.Labour became an almost unelectable brand. The new party field that
:22:04. > :22:06.fully. It looked very electable. Come 2010 it had gone. The House of
:22:06. > :22:11.Commons, the Labour Party and House of Commons, is completely
:22:11. > :22:19.unrepresented. It is full of political advisers. It is full of
:22:19. > :22:28.lawyers. You will know that some would say, where you read is back to
:22:28. > :22:32.political oblivion. Where I live? Whether unions. Ed Miliband has made
:22:32. > :22:37.an announcement about how he wants to fund the party. If the unions had
:22:37. > :22:39.said we are going to cut our affiliations by 90%, everyone would
:22:39. > :22:43.have said you are trying to blackmail the party. That is what
:22:43. > :22:46.they would have said. They would have said they we were holding a
:22:46. > :22:52.financial gun over the head of the to get what we want. We have never
:22:52. > :22:55.done that. Is Ed Miliband gets the changes where he -- that he wants,
:22:55. > :23:01.where you have an opt in system and you are able to get your members to
:23:01. > :23:05.opt in, what would be the effect? Literally hundreds of thousands of
:23:05. > :23:11.trade union members, many of them activists, workplace organisers,
:23:11. > :23:14.would become active in local labour parties. If there is some few were
:23:14. > :23:22.about Falkirk and a relatively handful of people join a party
:23:22. > :23:26.that, but it would be like a Vickers tea party. It would turn the Labour
:23:26. > :23:30.Party into one that you would laugh, but one not -- not one that Ed
:23:30. > :23:39.Miliband would. Yeo I think people think trade unions are robots and do
:23:39. > :23:44.what we say. Is not true. Is 250,000 trade union members, stewards,
:23:44. > :23:47.activists, joined the Labour Party, then I think it would transform the